Public SourceMage Discussion List

["Jeremy Blosser (emrys)" <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>]

I realized this might be buried for some, forwarding it back as a new
thread so people are aware.  The third +1 not included in the quote below
was David Kowis, see the quoted thread for the actual votes.

----- Forwarded message from "Jeremy Blosser (emrys)" 
<jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org> -----

Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 12:55:50 -0500
From: "Jeremy Blosser (emrys)" <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>
To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Results for Organization Policy vote

On May 06, Arwed von Merkatz [v.merkatz AT gmx.net] wrote:
> On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 10:20:02AM -0700, Andrew Stitt wrote:
> > I vote +1 on the policy ammendment below.
> 
> +1 from me too.

3 of 5 +1 == 60%, motion carries.

> > On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 01:06:59PM -0500, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
> > > I know Eric is busy with finals, so as APL I'm calling for a vote on the
> > > below amendment, as a more specific version of the suggested amendment
> > > proposed earlier today.
> > > 
> > > Per the new policy[0], Leads should reply to the ML with signed +/- 1 
> > > or 0
> > > votes.  Other developers may vote as well, but only Lead votes are 
> > > binding.
> > > The vote will last until 1PM CDT May 12th, or until a majority approves 
> > > or
> > > rejects it, whichever comes first.  This vote affects the voting 
> > > policy, so
> > > any lead or other developer can move for a veto at the end of the vote,
> > > regardless of the results.
> > > 
> > > [0] - Not yet on the web site, but we're working on having it there 
> > > today.
> > > 
> > > On May 05, Jaka Kranjc [jakakranjc AT email.si] wrote:
> > > > Seconded.
> > > > 
> > > > On Friday 05 May 2006 15:53, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
> > > > > I move for the following amendment:
> > > > >
> > > > > diff -dupr approved/policy_voting amend1/policy_voting
> > > > > --- approved/policy_voting      Tue Apr 18 11:34:53 2006
> > > > > +++ amend1/policy_voting        Fri May  5 08:49:22 2006
> > > > > @@ -83,8 +83,9 @@ Lead Voting Process:
> > > > >    of the vote to be valid.
> > > > >  - Lead Developers MUST cast a vote.
> > > > >  - General Developers MAY cast a vote.
> > > > > -- 51% of the Lead Developers MUST cast a vote, or the vote is 
> > > > > invalid.
> > > > > -- Votes require a simple (51%) majority to pass.
> > > > > +- More than 50% of the Lead Developers MUST cast a vote, or the 
> > > > > vote is
> > > > > +  invalid.
> > > > > +- Votes require a simple majority (greater than 50% of all votes 
> > > > > cast) to
> > > > > pass. - If no quorom or majority is achieved, and the vote is for a 
> > > > > Project
> > > > > or Component lead, and the incumbent is a valid candidate, they are
> > > > > reelected. If there is no incumbent or they have not accepted a 
> > > > > nomination,
> > > > > the position @@ -119,9 +120,10 @@ Issue Voting Process:
> > > > >  - Lead Developers MUST cast a vote.
> > > > >  - General Developers MAY cast a vote, but their votes are advisory 
> > > > > only
> > > > > (i.e., non-binding).
> > > > > -- 51% of the Lead Developers MUST cast a vote, or the vote is 
> > > > > invalid and
> > > > > -  fails.
> > > > > -- Votes require a simple (51%) majority (of all binding votes 
> > > > > cast) to
> > > > > pass. +- More than 50% of the Lead Developers MUST cast a vote, or 
> > > > > the vote
> > > > > is +  invalid and fails.
> > > > > +- Votes require a simple majority (greater than 50% of all binding 
> > > > > votes
> > > > > cast) +  to pass.
> > > > >  - Motions which pass are considered active immediately upon the 
> > > > > majority
> > > > > vote reaching the Mailing List.
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -129,10 +131,12 @@ Developer Removal Voting Process:
> > > > >  - General and Lead Developer Removal Votes WILL proceed per the 
> > > > > Issue
> > > > > Voting Process described above, with the following exceptions:
> > > > >    - The Developer in question MUST NOT vote.
> > > > > -  - Removal Votes require a super (67%) majority to pass.
> > > > > +  - Removal Votes require a super majority (greater than 2/3 of all
> > > > > binding +    votes cast) to pass.
> > > > >    - Exception to the above: Automatic Removal Votes (triggered by
> > > > > inactivity as specified in the Developer Organization document)
> > > > > automatically pass unless -    a simple (51%) majority vote against 
> > > > > the
> > > > > removal.
> > > > > +    a simple majority (greater than 50% of all binding votes cast) 
> > > > > vote
> > > > > against +    the removal.
> > > > >  - Successful or failed removal votes MAY be vetoed by the entire 
> > > > > group of
> > > > >    Developers.
> > > > >  - If an Automated Removal Vote fails fails, the Developer in 
> > > > > question WILL
> > > > > be @@ -149,7 +153,8 @@ Veto Process:
> > > > >    - For Removal Votes, the Developer in question MUST NOT vote.
> > > > >    - Lead Developers MAY vote, but are not required to.
> > > > >    - General Developers MAY cast a binding vote.
> > > > > -  - 51% of the Developers (Lead + General Developers) MUST cast a 
> > > > > vote, or
> > > > > the -    veto is invalid and fails.
> > > > > -  - Vetos require a super (67%) majority to pass.
> > > > > +  - More than 50% of the Developers (Lead + General Developers) 
> > > > > MUST cast
> > > > > a +    vote, or the veto is invalid and fails.
> > > > > +  - Vetos require a super majority (greater than 2/3 of all votes 
> > > > > cast) to
> > > > > +    pass.
> > > > >  - Veto votes are final.

Attachment: pgplB5NVqueSB.pgp
Description: PGP signature